40186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2021–0414 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ 

box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Next, look for 

this document in the Search Results 

column, and click on it. Then click on 

the Comment option. If you cannot 

submit your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0414 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0414 Safety Zone; M/V ZHEN 

HUA 24, Crane Delivery Operation, 

Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River, 

Baltimore, MD. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay and Patapsco River, 

within 500 feet of the M/V ZHEN HUA 

24 while it is transiting between 

Chesapeake Channel Lighted Buoy 90 

(LLNR 7825) in position 38°58′18.53′′ N, 

076°23′18.96′′ W, and the Seagirt Marine 

Terminal in position 39°15′02.43′′ N, 

076°32′20.50′′ W, Baltimore, MD. These 

coordinates are based on WGS 84. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Captain of the Port (COTP) means the 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region. 

Designated representative means a 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 

including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty 

officer, or other officer operating a Coast 

Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and 

local officer designated by or assisting 

the Captain of the Port MarylandNational Capital Region (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by telephone at 410–576– 

2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM 

channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the 

safety zone must comply with all lawful 

orders or directions given to them by the 

COTP or the COTP’s designated 

representative. 

(d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. 

Coast Guard may be assisted in the 

patrol and enforcement of the safety 

zone by Federal, State, and local 

agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced during inbound transit 

of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 to the Port 

of Baltimore. 

Dated: July 20, 2021. 

David E. O’Connell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Maryland-NCR. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15918 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES11110900000212] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three 

Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition findings 

and initiation of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- 

day findings on two petitions to add 

species to the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants and one 

petition to remove a species (‘‘delist’’) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 

review, we find that the petitions to list 

the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis 

lupus ligoni) and western ridged mussel 

(Gonidea angulata) present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned actions 

may be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we plan to initiate status 

reviews of these species to determine 

whether the petitioned actions are 

warranted. We find that the petition to 

delist the golden-cheeked warbler 

(Dendroica chrysoparia) does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review of the species. To ensure that the 

status reviews are comprehensive, we 

are requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding the 

species and factors that may affect their 

status. Based on the status reviews, we 

will issue 12-month petition findings, 

which will address whether or not the 

petitioned actions are warranted, in 

accordance with the Act. 

DATES: These findings were made on 

July 27, 2021. As we commence our 

status reviews, we seek any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the species or their habitats. 

Any information we receive during the 

course of our status reviews will be 

considered. 

ADDRESSES: 

Supporting documents: Summaries of 

the basis for the petition findings 

contained in this document are 

available on http://www.regulations.gov 

under the appropriate docket number 

(see table under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). In addition, this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40187 

supporting information is available by 

contacting the appropriate person, as 

specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Status reviews: If you have new 

scientific or commercial data or other 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the species for which we are 

initiating status reviews, please provide 

those data or information by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the appropriate docket number 

(see table under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). Then, click on the 

‘‘Search’’ button. After finding the 

correct document, you may submit 

information by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ If your information will fit in the 

provided comment box, please use this 

feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as 

it is most compatible with our 

information review procedures. If you 

attach your information as a separate 

document, our preferred file format is 

Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 

comments (such as form letters), our 

preferred format is a spreadsheet in 

Microsoft Excel. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

[Insert appropriate docket number; see 

table under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send information 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information we receive 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Species common name Contact person 

Alexander Archipelago wolf ......... Douglass Cooper, Ecological Services Branch Chief, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 907– 

271–1467, Douglass_Cooper@fws.gov. 

Golden-cheeked warbler ............. Adam Zerrener, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 512–490–0057 x248, Adam_

Zerrenner@fws.gov. 

Western ridged mussel ............... Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Portland Ecological Services Field Office, 503–231–6179, paul_henson@

fws.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf, please call the Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) set forth the 

procedures for adding species to, 

removing species from, or reclassifying 

species on the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 

17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to add a species to the List (i.e., 

‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from 

the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or 

change a listed species’ status from 

endangered to threatened or from 

threatened to endangered (i.e., 

‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. To 

the maximum extent practicable, we are 

to make this finding within 90 days of 

our receipt of the petition and publish 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our regulations establish that 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information with regard to a 90-day 

petition finding refers to credible 

scientific or commercial information in 

support of the petition’s claims such 

that a reasonable person conducting an 

impartial scientific review would 

conclude that the action proposed in the 

petition may be warranted (50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)(i); before 2016, 50 CFR 

424.14(b)). 

A species may be determined to be an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of one or more of the 

five factors described in section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The 

five factors are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(Factor A); 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B); 

(c) Disease or predation (Factor C); 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence (Factor 

E). 

These factors represent broad categories 

of natural or human-caused actions or 

conditions that could have an effect on 

a species’ continued existence. In 

evaluating these actions and conditions, 

we look for those that may have a 

negative effect on individuals of the 

species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to, or are reasonably likely to, 

affect individuals of a species 

negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition, or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) may not 

be sufficient to compel a finding that the 

information in the petition is substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. The 

information presented in the petition 

must include evidence sufficient to 

suggest that these threats may be 

affecting the species to the point that the 

species may meet the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act. 

If we find that a petition presents 

such information, our subsequent status 

review will evaluate all identified 

threats by considering the individual-, 

population-, and species-level effects 

and the expected response by the 

species. We will evaluate individual 

threats and their expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of the threats on the species as a 

whole. We also consider the cumulative 

effect of the threats in light of those 

actions and conditions that are expected 

to have positive effects on the species— 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts that 

may ameliorate threats. It is only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis of 

threats and the actions that may 

ameliorate them, and the expected effect 

on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future, that we can 

determine whether the species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or threatened species under the Act. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
40188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

If we find that a petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted, the 

Act requires that we promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species, and we will subsequently 

complete a status review in accordance 

with our prioritization methodology for 

12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July

27, 2016).

Summaries of Petition Findings 

The petition findings contained in 

this document are listed in the table 

below, and the basis for each finding, 

along with supporting information, is 

available on http://www.regulations.gov 

under the appropriate docket number. 

TABLE—STATUS REVIEWS

Common name Docket No. URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov 

Alexander Archipelago wolf ............................ FWS–R7–ES–2020–0147 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R7-ES-2020-0147 

Golden-cheeked warbler ................................. FWS–R2–ES–2016–0062 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R2-ES-2016-0062 

Western ridged mussel ................................... FWS–R1–ES–2020–0150 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R1-ES-2020-0150 

Evaluation of a Petition To List 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

Species and Range 

Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis 

lupus ligoni); Alaska and Canada. 

Petition History 

We received a petition on July 15, 

2020, dated the same, from the Center 

for Biological Diversity, Alaska 

Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of 

Wildlife, requesting that we list the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf as an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species and designate critical habitat for 

this species under the Act. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, required 

at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding 

addresses the petition. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted for the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf due to 

potential threats associated with the 

following: Logging and road 

development (Factor A); illegal and 

legal trapping and hunting (Factor B); 

the effects of climate change (Factor E); 

and loss of genetic diversity and 

inbreeding depression (Factor E). 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition, and other information 

regarding our review of the petition, can 

be found as an appendix at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2020–0147 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To Delist 

Golden-Cheeked Warbler 

Species and Range 

Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica 

chrysoparia = Setophaga chrysoparia); 

Texas, Mexico (Chiapas), and Central 

America (Guatemala, Honduras, 

Nicaragua, and El Salvador). 

Petition History 

On December 27, 1990, the Service 

published in the Federal Register (55 

FR 53153) a final rule to list the goldencheeked warbler as an endangered 

species. On June 30, 2015, we received 

a petition dated June 29, 2015, from 

Nancie G. Marzulla (Marzulla Law, 

LLC—Washington, DC) and Robert 

Henneke (Texas Public Policy 

Foundation—Austin, TX) requesting 

that we remove the golden-cheeked 

warbler from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(‘‘delist’’ the species) due to recovery or 

error in information. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, required 

at now 50 CFR 424.14(c) (before 2016, 

50 CFR 424.14(a)). 

On December 11, 2015, we received 

supplemental information from the 

petitioners that included additional 

published studies and an unpublished 

report. These studies, as well as others 

known to the Service and in our files at 

the time the supplement was received, 

were considered, as appropriate. On 

June 3, 2016, we published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 35698) our 

finding that the petition did not provide 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the petition 

action may be warranted. 

The General Land Office of Texas 

(GLO) challenged our June 3, 2016, 

negative 90-day finding on the petition 

to delist. The District Court found in 

favor of the Service. The GLO appealed 

the June 3, 2016, 90-day finding that 

decision, and the Circuit Court vacated 

and remanded it to the Service. This 

finding addresses the petition in 

response to the court’s decision. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted for the goldencheeked warbler. Because the petition 

does not present substantial information 

indicating that delisting the goldencheeked warbler may be warranted, we 

are not initiating a status review of this 

species in response to this petition. 

However, we ask that the public submit 

to us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of, or 

threats to, this species or its habitat at 

any time by contacting the appropriate 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition, and other information 

regarding our review of the petition, can 

be found as an appendix at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2016–0062 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Western 

Ridged Mussel 

Species and Range 

Western ridged mussel (Gonidea 

angulata); California, Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and the 

Canadian Province of British Columbia. 

Petition History 

On August 21, 2020, we received a 

petition dated August 18, 2020, from the 

Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation, requesting that we list the 

western ridged mussel as an endangered 

species and designate critical habitat for 

this species under the Act. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, required 

at 50 CFR 424.14(c). 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40189 

the western ridged mussel due to 

potential threats associated with the 

following: Habitat destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of range; 

impacts to water quantity, water quality, 

and natural flow and temperature 

regimes; aquatic invasive species (Factor 

A); and disease (Factor C). 

We find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that regulatory 

mechanisms may be inadequate to 

ameliorate or reduce those threats 

(Factor D). We determined that the 

petition does not provide substantial 

documentation for the threats of 

overutilization of the species for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes (Factor B) and loss 

of genetic diversity (Factor E). The basis 

for our finding on this petition, and 

other information regarding our review 

of the petition, can be found as an 

appendix at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020– 

0150 under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petitions 

under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 

4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have 

determined that the petitions 

summarized above for Alexander 

Archipelago wolf and western ridged 

mussel present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. We are, therefore, initiating 

status reviews of these species to 

determine whether the actions are 

warranted under the Act. At the 

conclusion of the status reviews, we 

will issue findings, in accordance with 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to 

whether the petitioned actions are not 

warranted, warranted, or warranted but 

precluded by pending proposals to 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In addition, we have 

determined that the petition 

summarized above for the goldencheeked warbler does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. We 

are, therefore, not initiating a status 

review of this species in response to this 

petition. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Ecological 

Services Program, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for these actions is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15497 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1